Research by YouGov for The Times found that 45 per cent of people in Scotland are in favour of keeping the nuclear-armed submarines in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, with 34 per cent opposed and 21 per cent undecided.
YouGov interviewed 1,115 adults aged 16 and over in Scotland between May 18 and 23.
What was asked?
If Scotland became an independent country, would you support or oppose Trident nuclear submarines continuing to be based in Scotland?
Support – 45%
Oppose – 34%
Don’t know – 21%
According to the research, SNP voters were least likely to support retaining Trident after independence, with 28 per cent in favour of such a move and 55 per cent opposed. There is slightly more support for the weapons in the wider independence movement, with 30 per cent of ‘yes’ voters in favour and 51 per cent against.
If Scotland became an independent country, would you support or oppose Scotland becoming a member of Nato?
Support – 73%
Oppose – 8%
Don’t know – 19%
The poll showed strong support for Nato, with 73 per cent in favour of an independent Scotland joining, 8 per cent against and 19 per cent unsure.
You can read more on this here.
A second poll?
Yes, earlier in the month a new poll from Survation found that 58% of people in Scotland believe the UK should keep Trident and that only 20% were certain it should be axed, with the remainder undecided.
Additionally, the poll undertaken by Survation found that 82 per cent of Scots ranked UK membership of the G7, NATO and the UN Security Council as “important”, while nine per cent rated it as “not important” and a further nine per cent didn’t know.
You can look at the raw data yourself here.
What is Trident?
Consisting of four Vanguard-class submarines armed with Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles, the Trident system is operated by the Royal Navy. Each submarine can carry as many as eight Trident missiles. Only one submarine is deployed at any one time, while two others are used for training and one undergoes maintenance in order to ensure that at least one is at sea at any time.
Trident is based at HMNB Clyde on Scotland’s west coast.
The previous poll was commissioned by a Scottish Unionist group who may have had an axe to grind, so it’s interesting to see the results repeated. I doubt there’s much to choose between Scottish voters and the opinions of UK overall. Wasn’t slightly in favour the proportion at the last general election?
Agree nuclear weapon support is much the same in Scotland as any where else in the UK. It’s in the SNP DNA from the time it was a fringe protest party and no one has ever wanted to get rid of it as they had no reason to.
What is interesting is that if Scotland did become independent and wanted to join nato it would need to have the UKs permission as any NATO member can veto any nation joining…not that the U.K. would Likely do this, but if an independent Scotland risked the U.K. deterrent, the U.K. may just play a bit hard ball back.
As Turkey are proving it may well indeed be difficult for any nation let alone Scotland to join.
Naturally Erdogan will have ‘requirements’ for him to change his mind, once those are met then of course the ‘terrorists’ being kept nicely in Sweden and Finland will no longer be of any concern to him.
A very senior US diplomat has been quoted on a number of occasions as saying that the US would categorically block an independent Scotland’s bid to join NATO if they required that the rUK removed Trident from Scottish territory, as that would starkly contrast with the fact that NATO is a nuclear alliance.
Something the SNP refuse to acknowledge. They are far too busy frothing at the mouth over horrible little England to actually consider real world practicalities.
If they did consider any real world practicalities, and I mean genuinely consider them, then for me the independence argument doesn’t really stack up in my opinion.
They want independence but expect that they will not have to take on a proportional share of the debt burden that currently exists.
They want independence but expect to the keep the £ so rUK basically underwrites their debt and gains them access to low interest rates on future borrowing.
They want independence but expect that rUK will donate significant amounts of kit and equipment from the existing military structures as part of the divorce.
They want independence from the nuclear deterrent yet expect immediate access to NATO.
They want independence from rUK but expect the EU to immediately welcome them with open arms as if Scotland never left the EU.
They want independence but expect that rUK will continue to build RN warships on Scottish soil which is a massive contributor to the Scottish economy.
They argue that the UK leaving the EU proves such a thing is possible while ignoring that the UK as it stands is one of the largest economies in the world. Ignoring the fact that via the Barnet formula they get significantly more income if averaged per capita across the rest of the UK.
North Sea oil is smoke and mirrors. London based companies with existing contracts and massive investments in historic R&D, and infrastructure would tie Scotland in legal knots for years should they insist on the full 91% of the revenues that the median border line would suggest they are entitled to. Add to that revenues are falling regardless of the price per barrel.
All opinion but it doesn’t stack up for me.
Its what one would call a fantasy.
What they say and what they do will be very different things, that’s polictics for you.
Oh no a US official mouthing off about something that has nothing to do with him as it is his personal opinion not policy. Maybe he should put his efforts into gun control or one of the other many issues in his own country first.
I say this as my personal opinion not policy.
Good thing is the SNP do not represent all of the Scottish people.
So when you look at roughly half want to stay, half want to go the solution should be a looser grouping to the U.K.
leaving the eu was the same. A close vote so the ideal solution would be a the middle ground.
Completely agree monkey, I do think the Union will need a constitutional review at some point. More and more we have a national government of London ( we see that very much in the NHS where we are asked in the rural extremities of the county to implement things that can only really work in the massively better funded NHS London).
I think we are going to need a more federal model going forward, it’s world for Germany and the US. With a Parliament for each nation running stuff like tax collection, eduction, health. Law and order Then regional level governments that focus on development and transport and then unitary council to sort the bins, local roads, social care, libraries and stuff. Finally a U.K. national government that sticks to stuff like defence, international relationships, foreign policy and boarders/international and organised crime and gets funding from the individual nations on an agreed share.
That’s nonsense, the UK would be far more interested in Scotland being in NATO than Scotland would be in joining.
It’s not nonsense Martin, read what I said: it’s a factual explanation of the mechanisms of a nation join NATO. I did not say the U.K. would block Scotland jointing ( infact I said the would not be likely do so…but you cannot ever say never in the geopolitics of nations, only a fool would say there was certainty). Don’t tell people thy are speaking nonsense without out actually considering what the have said.
“Don’t tell people thy are speaking nonsense without out actually considering what the have said.”
I’m not sure that’s how the internet works mate. 🙁
How can an independent Scotland risk the rUK deterrent? By definition it wouldn’t be a UK as it currently stand, and would rUK want to house its deterrent in a ‘foreign’ country? Even if we are more than happy to buy in foreign weapons as long as they aren’t capital Navy ships. And of course we don’t actually own the missiles anyway, only the launch platforms an warheads.
Simple really the cost of the infrastructure work to create a new base would likely mean the end of the U.K. deterrent and it’s name would still be the U.K. not U.K.r that’s something made up by nationalists. We do own the missiles they are simply pooled for the purpose of maintaining them. It’s sort of like shared equity…with the US owning most of the equity in the stock…….so if we don’t own our missiles neither does the US.
Why would it mean the end, rUK going in a huff? Relocated to somewhere else is not an issue, a few docks and that is it. As for the weapon storage there are plenty of places where the warheads could go instead of within fallout range of the Scottish Central Belt and would also shorten the travel distances to where they go for refurbishment. rUK is shorthand to compare with the current. Actually pedantically it could remain as UK, as that refers to the union of the crowns – kingdom! Given the woeful state of governance in current UK it will end up as the United England and Wales and possibly not even that, but is an entirely different issue. FYI rUK refers to the rest of the UK if Scotland gains independence, and therefore means everybody else except Scotland.
my understanding is would be a huge undertaking to move to the facilities and it simply with the new boats be a cost that was not something that could be managed. I do understand what rUK is, it’s just not actually a term. The term is U.K. is U.K. with Scotland as part of it and it will be the U.K. if Scotland leaves it.
One startling outcome from the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been the direct threat of using nukes against the West. No subtlety or acknowledgment that they would get the same back, just blunt warnings! As long as the kremlin continues with that mindset we stay with our deterrent.
The Genie is out the bottle now…North Korea et al will now use nuclear blackmal as part of their international negotiations.
It is a poor game to play. If you don’t have nukes I can’t see a nuclear country firing them at a non nuclear country unless you are beating them conventionally and invading there territory. If you do have nukes and an enemy fire them at you, you return fire and both countries die.
What ever way you look at it everyone loses. Nobody wins so is it even worth having them outside of the USA and Russia, china
In would say it is important NATO has at least 1 member other than the US with an independent nuke capability, even if small, to ensure article 5 is as robust and credible as possible. This gives a degree of redundancy to the alliances ability to respond in the face of a political, personal or technical barrier to a timely US response.
Which is probably why more people are happy to retain Trident, though the reduction in conventional forces to accommodate funding for the replacement boats is not necessarily the best option. All that is achieving is a means of saying we will nuke you back but otherwise cannot stop you conventionally.
I doubt many adults would want nuclear weapons but how to get rid of them? Like Ernest Bevan said ‘If they’ve got one, I want one with a bloody great Union Jack on it!’
Barry nobody wants to fire nuclear wepaons but they are actively used every day as a deterent and have kept the peace (just) in Europe and North America since WW2 ironically giving the world the lowest death rate from war in recorded history. Paying billions to have nuclear weapons bobbing up and down in the oceans harming nobody has thus far been the best investment humanity has made for a long while.Maybe one day all nations will be at permanant peace and we can consider the options until then the grown ups will demand we continue as we are …
That will be the number one reason I can think of. It stops conventional war between countries that have them. Or that’s what it’s meant to do.
Would those countries have fought if neither held nuclear weapons we will never know. Unless there is a parallel universe without nukes on our timeline that we can visit
Good point. Several observers would argue that, especially during the cold war, the east and west were engaged in various proxy wars around the globe. Each location carefully chosen such that nuclear war was highly unlikely regardless of the outcome. There were two conventional (world) wars during the first half of the twentieth century so you coulkd argue we might be on WW5 by now – but as you say we will never know.😀
Thank you. I know. I am old and know things.
Everybody from north Korea to Iran knows that those without nukes get pushed around by those that do. The nuclear disarmament camp has two types of people. First ridiculous airheads who actually believe that if we all just wish hard enough then reality itself will change (this sort of thinking is alarmingly common) and actual traitors.
Keeps the free World Free and cheaper than having massive standing conventional forces. Scots also know it means a lot of money to them too. They do have some common up North, except for that Witch in Edinburgh.
Note however the boats have 16 missile tubes with only 8 currently filled (but you never actually know for sure) with up to 8 separate weapons per missile, so a lot bigger bang than the previous class and enough to give others second thoughts
I do love a survey, we asked 0.0002% of the population what they thought and these are the results which then make it into headlines.
Also without any background info on how the people were choosen etc. It’s easy to get poll results you want by adjusting the questions before the key one to guide the person into a specific answer or by choosing who you poll carefully.
Surely the same poll shoud have asked if thery support independance first …
I think the success of the SNP is because Labour, the conservatives and Liberals are not holding them to account. I think you will likely see a drop in the vote for the SNP over the decade as they become more and more extreme left wing. This is likely to turn off the average Scot eventually. I think the vote for the SNP is high as they have been exceptionally good at screwing the rest of the UK out of cash. I always thought both Labour and the conservatives should have just given Scotland the same cash as everyone else so there was a level playing field. However, Labour and the conservatives are that scared of losing Scotland that they will almost pay any price and the SNP know this is the case.
With the exception of a handful of newspapers the SNP has a free hand in Scotland. TV and radio are up the SNP’s arse. I don’t know enough to say why but that’s how it is.
45% said they support it, how is that most? You can’t ignore the undecideds.
All you can say from the survey is in respect of the people with an opinion either way, more people support keeping it than not.
I doubt our boomers would remain in Scotland if they voted to leave the UK, and rightly so. You dont have your greatest and most expensive detterent parked up in a FOREIGN country. Especially a country that has quite a high level of Anglophobia on a good day. National security would dictate the moving of the subs to UK bases, and quite likely the removal of Scots sailors from the subs.
Don’t be so sure Bill, I detect the SNP have actually peaked in popularity, the situation in the Ukraine has made many really think seriously about the greater Scottish question.
Scottish Labour appears to be starting to make back some lost ground, having been all but wiped out north of the border too.
Interesting to know what our Scottish contributors think?
Wanting to move them south and being able to are different things. Firstly there is cost of building a new base Vs using existing. Then there is time required to actually build it and finaly and most key you need to find somewhere where it won’t be constantly blocked by the local council. No one wants nukes in their back yard
As a Scottish person I am in the fence for independence just now. Last time I voted yes as the more I got told it won’t work, Scotland can’t manage without England chucking cash at it, I thought f*** you then. We will manage and make you eat those words.
After more time to think I do value the U.K. but the opinion of what I can assume are English in here with terrible comments like the Scottish are some lower class citizens.
The SNP (along with MSP’s from other parties) have brought policies that make a difference to life over the rest of the U.K. citizens. Free prescriptions, healthcare in general, higher education support, money for families, higher tax on high earners to name but a few. All popular policies with the majority.
I can’t actually think of a terrible thing the SNP have actually done of the top of my head. ( doesn’t mean there aren’t any).
I would expect any party that represents scotland to do the same as the SNP and that is do what’s best for Scotland (the U.K. is Westminster’s job)
As for trident, while the thought if we get rid of it we can avoid any trouble in the world is attractive it’s unrealistic. If that was the plan it’s best to avoid nato aswell.
The U.K. is stronger together on the world stage and the best way I can see to get away from the division and bad feeling on all sides is to start acting like the U.K. is one country. Nobody is better than the rest just because of where they are from in the U.K.
the referendum has been and gone. Put it to bed. Most people adopt an attitude of if you talk down to me or treat me badly then I don’t need you and you can gtf
You’re not alone, the SNP knows a win isn’t currently guaranteed and that is why they are trying to put off the vote, they say they have the mandate but aren’t calling one. They know full well if they lose it a second time there is zero chance of a third in their life time. They will wait until the time is right. I’m not sure the long term future of Scotland should be decided on a small margin and good timing, but I’m not Scottish and so none of my business.
You are right it shouldn’t be decided by small margins. I would say 60% minimum to make such massive changes. I would of said the same for brexit as well.
I think the current system as the best just now and unless the rest of the U.K. went really off the current track I think it should stay that way. Most people I see also think the same.
What people seem not realise is that who ever is in the Scottish parliament gets the pleasure of blaming someone else when things go wrong and taking credit when they go right. It used to be the U.K. government position with the EU. Blame them when it goes bad and take credit when it works out well.
Nobody should under estimate how fortunate we are to live in the U.K, Europe etc.
It still is the position of the gov to blame the EU. Most of the issues we are having right now are because of the UK implementation of brexit, such as zero prep for border controls / immigration controls that are inappropriate for farming needs etc, but it’s all being blamed on the EU. Also the NI protocol is being blamed on the EU, even though NI ecomony is out performing the rest of the UK.
In the end it’s just polictics, always have someone else to blame. Look at the US with China.
The end of the Barnett formula for Scotland would free up £4bn a year every year for HMG.
Not really that simple, as there is the small question of the North sea oil to take into account. Also the £4b is the amount spent, and not the amount earned, Scotland is still a net contributor to the economy even after the formula.
Only on the basis of the SNP’s claims on Scotlands exclusive maritime zone. That is to put it mildly not widely shared outside SNP HQ.
It will be brexit mark2, lots of fake claims and outright lies, plus stats being used out of context. I’m sure the SNP learnt from brexit. They just need to sort out their story on the currency this time, as that sunk the vote last time, or at least was the final nail.
The issue will always be that no one really knows what will happen in reality when it comes to the EU membership, national debt, NATO membership, natural resources etc. Anyone that says otherwise is either deluded or lying. I have a theory, but it’s only that.
You are joking ? We are in trouble, most independent financial experts point out that Scotland debt is worse than Greece.If they are that successful why do the SNP refuse the subsidy in exchange for the full VAT ? It would clinch the financial argument amongst Scottish voters many who probably vote against independence with the heads rather than their hearts. So I challenge the SNP and their supporters to refuse the Barnett formula and clinch the argument. More chance of Putin winning the Nobel peace prize !
The debt question is awkward. Scotland didn’t run a deficit between 1979-2014. It put in more than it got back. One professor worked out the debt scotland owed is £106billion by adding up the extra pumped in to U.K. economy versus spending etc etc
The only thing the Scot do not get back is 50% of Vat. After you take into account Barnett it is nearer 8billion subsidy. That’s 2 extra aircraft carriers to you defence buffs every blinking year! Just think stop the subsidy and 5 years from now we could have more flat decks than the yanks! Cos we would be able to afford to fly kites only from them, but it’s food for thought.
I think that if it is a blind tax that does not know where it will go when it enters Scotland, it can turn northern England into a modernized industrial complex.
It is not normal for the government to extort huge sums of money every year from the threat of Scotland’s independence.
Seeing the gov being swayed by the idiots called SNP is enough to completely lose my respect for uk government.
Why would the UK agree to Scottish membership of NATO without continued use of Faslane to base Trident ? Where do these wokes get the idea our position should be anything other than that. Many seem to have been brainwashed on the idea that in the event of independence that 5 million people can dictate to the other 62 million what those terms of independence will be, it will not, if the PM wants to keep their job. Some think that Sturgeon does not really want independence, it’s just a way of keeping the SNP in power?
We are only one member of NATO though. Do we have a way a veto on new members? Would we really use it, considering the implications that would have polictically, with the new nation that we want to trade heavily with.
See Turkey making demands about Sweden and Finland to see what just one country can do if they feel like throwing spanners into works.
Yeah but we are not realistically going to block them. Even if Scotland voted for independence, their will be too many economic and polictical ties between the two nations to not want to create a good diplomatic approach.
Plus internationally blocking them over trident basing, would just be seen as being petty.
All NATO countries have a veto as you know. A nod to the yanks would all that would be needed. As for the trade I think they need us more than we need them. In fact ironically we would have initially more control over Scotland than we do now.
Faslane is the 2nd largest employer in Scotland with over 6k workers paying tax to the Scottish economy, this helps to provide the funding to Scotland expanded public service not to mention service families and service personnel using local shops pubs etc. If on Indy could Scotland afford to cut this and the other defence related including supply chain jobs.
I think the SNP judges every issue on one thing. Does it make independence more or less likely. If they decide getting rid of Trident would make it more likely those 6.000 workers are ‘flipped’
Of course the biggest lie about all of this is the one told to the SNP cult members that Trident would go, when it would actually be the first thing to stay.
Faslane is the one & only bit of leverage the SNP would have with the rUK in any break-up negotiations.
Keeping Trident will be the first (of many) big betrayal’s of its core voters, once the cold hard realities of needing money, post Barnett, to keep the lights on and paying pensions.
Polls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
And Scotland just like wales would be standing agreeing and supporting as we all share common values.
45% is not most! If you exclude the don’t knows then clearly there is a majority, but how does anyone know that the don’t knows wouldn’t support one side or the other. Mathematically it should be written that there were more supporters than opposers. That is the only true interpretation of the stats. But there again our political system is skewed statistically anyway. More people didn’t vote for the Tories at the GE than did; a quirk of the unequal size of constituences, yet this is taken by them as carte blanche to do what they like, the minority dictating to the majority! So there is not a demonstrated majority in favour of Trident at all. However, what complicates the issue would be if an independent Scotland retained the nuclear base and warhead store on behalf of the rUK. A somewhat different nuance completely. If rUK (England) wanted to keep nuclear capability would they really want them kept in a ‘foreign’ country even if also a NATO member? Bear in mind that actually it is only the boats and warheads that are ‘ours’ the launch missiles which are the actual Trident belong to USA. So our nuclear deterrence is already ‘fractured’.
I started supporting the SNP a few years ago as flet Scottish Labour were just a nodding dog for the Westminster version. Yes the SNP has done lots of good things in Scotland but there is always room for improvement. Since Brexit I have always felt that the Scottish Conservatives would probably do even better in an independent Scotland. Anyway, back to Trident. If there was independence the first thing that should be done is to call an election and all parties could present their defence policies. I am not against Scotland having its own Nuke capability. A limited number bolted on to either TLAMS or slung under an F35 would be a cheaper option than an ICBM capability.
So if Scotland does become independent the UK government is willing to prop up the SNP government with billions in MOD money. I would rather they spent billions making a new base for trident south of the Scottish border especially with the SNPs anti nuclear policy. To much of a risk that a foreign government hold the UK trident hostage by denying access to the base. When I say a foreign government I mean a SNP government.